[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Who Are The Real Extremists?
Source: Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
URL Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... 6/who-are-the-real-extremists/
Published: Aug 26, 2019
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2019-08-27 06:57:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7773
Comments: 50

The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have re-ignited efforts to pass “Red Flag” laws, which allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process, and expanded background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun. Some supporters of these measures acknowledge they would not have prevented the Dayton and El Paso shootings, but they think the government must “do something,“ even if that something only makes it more difficult for average Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The fact that one of the shooters may have been motivated by anti-immigrant views has led to calls for government surveillance of “right-wing extremists.” There are talks of developing computer programs to search social media and identify those whose extreme views supposedly make them likely to commit violence. There are also calls for legislation giving the government new powers to prevent “domestic terrorism.”

Proposals targeting individuals based on their political beliefs — no matter how noxious they are — are a step toward criminalizing those beliefs. If the government gains new powers to treat those with abhorrent beliefs as potential criminals, it will not be long before those powers are used against anyone who challenges the welfare-warfare status quo.

The current use of “right-wing extremism” as a justification for expanding the surveillance state is the mirror image of the use of “Islamo-fascism” to justify the post 9-11 infringements on civil liberties. That is why it is distressing to see progressives and Muslim advocacy groups pushing for new federal authority to crack down on “domestic terrorism,” just as it was disappointing when so many conservatives who opposed Bill Clinton’s attempt to expand the surveillance state endorsed the exact same proposals when they were included in the PATRIOT Act. It is ironic that progressives are supporting new laws against domestic terrorism while simultaneously protesting FBI targeting of Black Lives Matter activists as domestic terrorists.

This is not to say there are not those with extreme ideologies who threaten our liberty and safety, but they are the Republicans and Democrats located in Washington, DC! The most obvious example of DC-based violent extremism is the war party propagandists who spread falsehoods to build support for regime change wars. By the time their falsehoods have been exposed, it is too late: America is stuck in another no-win quagmire and the war party has moved on to its next target.

Demagogic politicians also fan fear and hatred to protect and expand the welfare state. Right-wing nationalists scapegoat illegal migrants without distinguishing between those who come here to take advantage of the welfare system from those who come here seeking economic opportunity — while left-wing progressives demonize the wealthy without distinguishing between those who made their fortunes in the market serving consumers and those who made their fortunes by manipulating the political process. These extremists use scapegoating and demagoguery to gain power and keep the people from focusing on the real source of their discontent: the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes it possible.

As the welfare-warfare-fiat money system collapses, we will see increased violence. This will result in an increase in police state power. The only way to avoid this fate is for good people to unite and replace the extremist ideologies of the mainstream of both left and right with the ideas of liberty. A good start would be applying “Red Flag” laws to remove neocons from any influence over US foreign policy!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 38.

#2. To: Deckard (#0)

I read the first sentence where Ron Paul has written that …
The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have re-ignited efforts to pass “Red Flag” laws, which allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process …
I thought – WOAH – and would read no further because I don’t understand what Ron Paul was saying or meant tjere.

I therefore ask you, Deckard, since you are a strong supporter of libertarianism and a devoted Ron Paul admirer and one who should understand what Ron Paul was saying – to explain to me what he meant when he said: “[Red flag laws] take away a person’s guns without due process.”

I can’t understand that because it is my belief that the red flag law permits police or the family of individuals to petition a state court for an order yp temporary remove firearms from any person who may present a danger to others or to themselves. A judge must make a determination to issue the temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing.

My question therefore to you, Deckard, is twofold:

  • First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?”

  • Secondly, is my understanding of the red flag law correctly stated?

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-27   14:58:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin (#2) (Edited)

The fact that you are FOR Red Flag Laws when it's the gun grabber politicians (on both sides) who are pushing this bullshit makes me more certain that you are a leftist posing as a conservative.

First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?”

New York's New 'Red Flag' Law Illustrates the Due Process Problems Posed by Gun Confiscation Orders

The new law allows a long list of people to seek an "extreme risk protection order" that bars the respondent from possessing firearms.

Potential petitioners include police officers, prosecutors, blood relatives, in-laws, current and former spouses, current and former housemates, current and former girlfriends or boyfriends, people who have produced a child with the respondent, and school administrators or their designees, such as teachers, coaches, and guidance counselors. The "school personnel" covered by the law can even report a former student if he graduated within the previous six months.

So you have a minor argument with your girfriend, she calls the cops - your guns are taken away.

You don't think ex-wives and girlfriends will spitefully use these red flag laws out of vengeance.

Basically you are being punished for "thoughtcrime".

Deckard  posted on  2019-08-28   8:28:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Deckard (#15)

So you have a minor argument with your girfriend, she calls the cops - your guns are taken away.
Not SO!!!

And your post is pure bullshit, dung beetle.

If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.

A judge must then make a determination whether or not to issue a temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question and witnesses. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing.

How is that NOT due process?

"Jesus H. Christ" – Deckard.

Get to know the damned red flag laws and stop pulling irrational comments like the one you just made out of your ass.

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-28   9:28:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Gatlin (#20)

If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.

Even if there's NO real threat.

Get it yet gun-grabber?

Deckard  posted on  2019-08-28   9:36:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Deckard (#22) (Edited)

If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.

Even if there's NO real threat.

The law DOES not say:
“… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAKES a THREAT to others …”
What does the law say?

The law says:

“… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAY present a DANGER to others …”
Definitions:
  • MAY - A possibility.

  • THREAT - A statement in which YOU TELL SOMEONE that you will cause them harm or trouble if they do not do what you want.

  • DANGER - The POSSIBILITY of suffering harm or injury.
You will now be read your “Gatlin Warning:”
“You have the right to a clear understanding of the Red Flag Laws. Anything you say wrong through your misunderstanding can and will be used to ridicule you. You have the right to consult with Tooconvervative or any other libertarian. If you cannot understand the right stated here or the contents of this entire post, then that is your tough shit and I have no sympathy for someone who is so stupid.
You have been “Gatlindized.”
Get it yet gun-grabber?
The proper question is:

Do YOU get it NOW, illiterate libertarian?

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29   1:33:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Gatlin (#35) (Edited)

Why stop at guns? Someone MAY decide to kill someone or themselves using a car or truck.

Didn't we see that a while back when a terrorist rammed a truck into a crowd?

In fact, there has been more than one of those.

Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts

How about knives?

Terrorist incidents involving knife attacks

The red flag laws do not go far enough - we need to take cars and knives from anyone who MAY use them to harm themselves and/or others.

Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS?

Yeah - that comes as no surprise.

Get it yet gun-grabber?

Deckard  posted on  2019-08-29   5:47:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Deckard (#36)

Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS?
Oh “wait” you say.

Well, sport, that is just what I have doing for a very long time now – “waiting” ever so impatiently for you to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

Get that, you irrational libertarian fear-monger as you daily continue with your constant spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of ever impending danger – which has become a habit to you and never happen – as you go about purposely and needlessly trying to arouse public fear.

Yes, I am still “waiting” …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29   7:34:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Gatlin (#37) (Edited)

how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

Why stop at guns? Why not take trucks, cars and knives as well?

You would agree there, right?

After all - "if it saves one life..."

Deckard  posted on  2019-08-29   7:37:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 38.

#40. To: Deckard (#38)

You would agree there, right?
Nope.

But I would agree if you say that you are unable to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

You have been unable to explain that, right?

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-29 07:51:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Deckard (#38) (Edited)

Morning News Report:
One dead, nine injured during knife attack near Lyon, France
And in reference to Red Flag Laws, you asked:
How about knives?
Be very careful here.

For it is written in Matthew 7:7 – in the New International Version of the Bible – that to:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Uh, the last part of that verse does not apply to the knives you are speaking about.

It applies to a “Swat Team” and the verse when applied to a “Swat Team” should read:

“… Police will knock and if you don’t open the door, then in some cases they will open it for you – by kicking it in.
Remember that the cops break down your door to enter your home.

You don’t remember that?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

As a general rule, cops can never break down your door to enter your home in a forced entry. Before entering your home, officers must knock, announce their presence, and wait for you to come to the door like you would for any other visitor. This requirement is called the “knock-and-announce” rule. This purpose of this rule is to allow people an opportunity to respond so that violence can be averted and privacy protected. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a general rule. Once the cops knock and announce their presence, they only have to wait a reasonable amount of time for you to come to the door. If you do not come to the door, they are permitted to make a forced entry.

The issue that usually arises is what is a reasonable time for officers to wait before a forced entry? The Supreme Court has upheld forced entries after the cops only waited 15-20 seconds. Courts don’t generally require the police to wait for extended periods because of concerns that defendants will try to dispose of evidence before the police enter. If the police do not knock and announce as required, most courts will not automatically find that the police entry and search were illegal. Instead, they will just consider it a “factor” in determining whether the forced entry in your home and subsequent search were reasonable.

First Exception to the Knock and Announce Rule: Exigency

Even though officers should knock and announce their presence before they break down a door or carry out another forced entry, exceptions apply. The first type is based on exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances describe an emergency situation. For example, if officers have a warrant to search for drugs in your house, they knock and then immediately hear flushing (activity consistent with the disposal of drugs); they can break down your door and enter your house without announcing their presence or waiting for you to answer. Another common exigent or emergency situation is when the police have been called to your house because of a domestic dispute. If they hear threats or screams coming from inside your home which would lead the officers to believe that someone was in danger, then officers are permitted to break down your door and enter your home to protect a victim or carry out another type of forced entry.

Second Exception: Permission

The second type of exception to the knock-and-announce rule is written permission granted by a judge. The courts have excused the knock-and-announce rule in drug raids where the officers know the suspect may have large dogs, a security system or have a history of violence. The officer must explain to the judge why it would be dangerous for officers to announce their presence. If the court thinks their fear is justified, he will grant them advance permission for a forced entry, allowing them to break down your door and enter your home to conduct a search or an arrest.

Whether the entry into your home is forced or peaceful, stay calm and asked for a copy any warrants. As soon as possible, contact an attorney so s/he can review the warrant and basis for the warrant to ensure that your rights were protected.

https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal- law/arrests_and_searches/police-break-door.htm

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-31 13:31:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 38.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com